Re: RM and abstract syntax trees

On Nov 1, 12:36 pm, Marshall <marshall.spi..._at_gmail.com> wrote:
> On Oct 31, 6:20 pm, David BL <davi..._at_iinet.net.au> wrote:> > On Oct 31, 11:55 pm, Marshall <marshall.spi..._at_gmail.com> wrote:>> > > If we are using nested structures, then the structure itself> > > provides the integrity.>> > Exactly, that's what I was trying to say. My somewhat vague notion> > is that the RM representation loses that simplicity because it is *too> > flexible* - hence the need for complex integrity constraints>> Sure.>> It is a general engineering truism that a solution designed for> some specific narrow purpose may be better *at that purpose*> than something general purpose.>> So it's no particular surprise that a structure of heterogeneous> trees will model an application (parsing) of heterogeneous> trees.>> We might prefer a general solution still, for general reasons.> And I think we will also find that at least some queries are> going to be easier with a relational approach even so.> Off the top of my head ... oh, I dunno. Dump all the symbol> names or something.

If it's indeed true that RM is too flexible for certain sub-problems,
it would seem that from the perspective of RM those sub-problems where
better niche solutions exist should be treated as opaque domain types.

Date seems to take this point of view : ie that the structure of
domains is orthogonal to the relational model.
Received on Wed Oct 31 2007 - 23:57:43 CDT